Anyone who read my books, articles or posts knows I frequently find myself in disagreement with much about America.

But when it comes down to what's really important in this World, in this Life, America, the United States will always earn credence as the most wonderful place in the World.

It is difficult to be America.

We are not perfect.

But there's something about the United States and the people that will never be surpassed - ever.

And yes, I will continue to write my opinions when I see things that don't seem right but in my heart of hearts, and I mean no disrespect to any Country on this earth, I say this...the United States is almost perfect.

There are things in the U.S that might bever be surpassed,
how productive and dominant it was in the 20th century, giving rise to the benchmark for desired living standards for the past century and at least the next one, in my view.
A Nation founded on immigrants and a beautiful multi-cultural and diverse gathering of peoples from around the globe. It is still a land of opportunity.
However Perfect is an extrememly silly word.
There's alot wrong with this world , and the U.S is not immune to these issues, and has some issues that are both severe and specific to the nation.
If this is perfect, can we never hope to live in a more equal society, ridded of homelessness and drug abuse to name but a few serious issues.

One that really gets me about the U.S is if you were to imagine it with the gun laws/attitudes/cultures of say western europe, the American murder rate would more than halve in my opinion. That is one very backward thing about the states.

Also the welfare system is at least a decade behind most of western europe. While most of western europe went too far too fast (and now are indebted with extremely high taxes)
However, U.S hasn't went far enough and should continue developing it's welfare as far as it can without stretching the budget.

Honestly , 'most wonderful place in the world' . . have you lived anywhere else?? Your life maybe wonderful, but on aggregate , this statement is invalid-

Your right. The rural law abiding citizens without guns would die instead of standing a chance. We don't all have a police station within 30 minutes or even animal control. Most of America may be urban but someone has to look out for the minority.

Humans will murder each other with or without guns. I fail to see your point. Many gun crimes are committed by those breaking many laws already. And more laws achieves what?

I like my American laws that protects my rights to defend my family and property when attacked. That's peace of mind I can't get in Europe.

As far as welfare I say go get a job. Cut off this baby mentality. Give 'em a acre of land and no taxes. Live off the land buddy - there's plenty of it. Our forefathers didn't have all the taxes because they didn't give away crap. They built a nation instead of giving it away.

If you want welfare and aren't 100% disabled then I want some work. Have these folks pick up trash on the roads, learn to fill in pot holes, mow lawns, clear brush, clean parks, clean sewers, paint buildings, and do basic simple labor jobs. Oh wait how many would apply for welfare then? We can't do that though - how inhumane is that kind of work.

What you call welfare, I call a drain on society. No disrespect to a person trying to feed a family but that person probably is barely scraping by at a retail or fast food joint. And I have no problem helping those workers with medical assistance or food stamps. They're doing the best they can given the times.

In short - this is America not Europe, if you're that liberal there are boats leaving everyday, go find one.

I actually agree with the job welfare argument you make (bit extreme) but I was actually refering to different types of welfare (for vulnerable citizens / healthcare etc),

However, your view on guns and european liberalism is way of the mark in my opinion.
Most western countries have a similar trend of in poverty/drug use/social problems, the social ingredients that push a lot of humans to murder (and you're right humans will always murder)
, however the murder rates are higher in america why ??- Attitudes towards guns , thats why.
In europe if you really want to you can get a licensed gun pretty easily (e.g farmers in the country whatever , tend to have guns . Its the attitude as much as the legislation, that brings about this trend in US murders.

Also, People referring to what the 'forefathers wanted' always strikes me as almost brainwashing patriotic rhetoric. Being a patriot is a great thing, being sentimental about the founding of your country, is a great thing. Preaching about current policy on the basis that your forefathers weren't fond of tax in the late 1700's is nothing short of mentally inept.

In my opinion that kind of patriotism is destructive to forward policy thinking, and an instrument of scare-mongering (Americans perpetual fear of being branded unpatriotic)

Relative to this Earth we know, The United States is a belief founded on freedom and is "almost" Perfect.(Relative to this Earth) And, Americans will not let it fade away.

And good Americans will keep fighting to make it better.

With respect to all Countries and all Peoples, this is only my opinion. Despite all that is wrong in the United States as in all Countries, life, in this World, for all people, would be
far less bright and hopeful without the United States.

As I said, Mr. TheWerewolf, it's my opinion and I guess I'm just tired of all of those in this World, like you, who blame the United States for all the World's woes and never take time to appreciate what the United States has tried to do in this World.

There are many things I do not like in the United States, but the things I love about the United States are really all that matters.

I'm not an author, nor an economist...just a common soldier. I love America, and find that I appreciate her more than most born here, because I have lived somewhere else. I marvel at her past, lament at her present, yet hold much hope for her future.
It is the welfare systems in Europe that have caused such an onerous burden on the economies; systems which many are now having to unwind. Your statement that "...US hasn't went far enough and should continue developing it's welfare...." is dead wrong. I feel that it is precisely because the average American is unused to such Government largesse. Being unused to it, they "get hooked" on the welfare and handouts. Our politicians, I think, recognize the political peril of "unwinding" it, and don't have the courage of their convictions to do what is necessary, notwithstanding. There is a real danger that when they finally do get around to what they must in order to get citizens less dependent upon the Government, the push-back from the now "completely hooked" masses will make the welfare-reduction anger in Athens, Paris or London look like a picnic!

I agree with a lot of what you have to say, but I don't think a change in our gun control laws would lead to a decline in the USA's homicide rates. Guns are already widely available and it is not at all difficult to buy a gun illegally. If you look across the globe, the factor that correlates most strongly with homicide and so many other types of crime is economic inequality. The USA has far more inequality than the EU or any individual European country. Unless that is addressed, the USA will retain its status as perhaps the most dangerous western country.

I did not mention the word "better place to live." Norway, Switzerland or the Netherlands are wonderful "places to live." Greece, Italy, France, and hundreds of other Countries I've visited are wonderful "places to live."

But my article is not about "places to live." All I'm saying in that with the United States,this World, this Earth, everyone's Lives, are brighter for all time.

I am not talking about "better" Countries or "better People."

The lifestyle of many Countries suits me to a tea.

But I am saying, "Without America, without the United States, none of these Countries could ever feel the brightness of freedom and hope.

The United States is perfect, absolutely NOT. In this World, on this Earth, in relative terms, am I saying that the United States is almost perfect, YES.

Sometimes, in every Country, some people are just ignorant.
There are ignorant people in the United States, and in every Country in this World.

For you to infer that the United States and all its people, e.g. "Americans are great but sometimes just a bit...ignorant" I hope is not how you feel or what you really believe.

The cultures of many Countries suits me to a tea. In addition to being a businessman, I took six years of my life to earn a Masters Degree in Classical Music Composition from Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.

Indeed, for an Businessman/Artist, many Countries and cultures fit me more perfectly. Yes, I have visited hundreds of wonderful Countries. No, I have not lived in them.

But I am saying, "Without America, without the United States, none of these Countries could ever feel the brightness of freedom and hope.

The United States is perfect, absolutely NOT. In this World, on this Earth, in relative terms, am I saying that the United States is almost perfect, YES.

And despite many things not so good, the good American people will fight hard to keep keep the United States true to its destiny.

And I hope that you will meet and befriend Americans who you relate to perfectly since I sense you have an open and intellectual mind.

""Without America, without the United States, none of these Countries could ever feel the brightness of freedom and hope."

You are obviously a well-educated and talented man and I do not mean to insult you, but you do seem overly idealistic about the USA's role in the world. It is difficult for me to interpret that statement in a manner that is true.

As I am sure you know, the principle's of our (American) Republic were derived from the intellectual traditions of France and Britain; not the other way around. We needed the help of the French to gain our independence and establish our Republic, but they did not need the USA's help to establish theirs. We certainly deserve praise for defending the freedom of western Europe from the USSR, but most of them had already developed their own traditions of democracy and freedom without our help. At this point many people in Europe consider their freedom much greater and more progressive than ours. I suspect few people there view us as a beacon of freedom and hope.

Many in developing world do, but even that depends on the country and culture. It is currently my job to get Chinese students into top American universities. I'm sure that many American exceptionalists would imagine that my students would be excited to escape tyranny move to a land of "freedom and hope"; but yet I have no students who think that way. To them the USA is simply a country of high paying jobs with the best universities in the world. They will receive their education, perhaps look for a job in Wall Street, and than most of them will return home to pursue their careers. To that 20% of the world's population, "hope" is the hope of getting a better education, a better career, and in general fulfilling their ambitions; the USA does play a part in that as the current #1, but purely because of its wealth and power not its ideals. To them "freedom" is the ability to indulge your desires and exercise power over others; it is not to be idealized and they don't consider the USA as exemplarly example of it.

Combine that with the hundreds of millions of Muslism who would rather live in an Islamic Republic than a secular one, and the various other cultures with their own ideals; and I really don't believe that a significant number of people consider the USA as the near perfect beacon of freedom and hope that so many Americans think it is.

Thank you for your thoughtful and exceptional comment. You too, I can see are a thinking person and I accept fully the intent of your extraordinary defense of your position. Indeed, the idealistic, sensitive side of me accepts your logic.

However, let's go deeper.

At some early age, possibly 10 or so, for the very first time in my life, I awoke one day and what was once innocent, bright, appeared tarnished and darker. I remember that day well.

Years later, I understood that it was on that dark day, I lost my innocence, my bliss, and the brightness of my childhood and I saw (and felt) the World differently. For the first time, I saw the tragedy and irony of life on this earth.

By the age of 20, indeed, I felt perplexed.

One day I asked a wise professor/philosopher a question about the ways of life. I explained that it seemed that many people were disingenuous, unkind, selfish and often, cunning and cruel. And I asked, "How many chances should I give these people before I determined the truth of my observations."

This wise philosopher said, "Richie, if they seek to harm you once, give them another try. And if they harm you twice, then, seek their friendship no more."

In the many years that followed, I studied the theories of human good and evil, the nature of man in the writings of Hobbes and Rousseau. From my perspective, it seemed to me that Rousseau was positive and hopeful but naive, and that Hobbes, believing that mankind was evil and needed to be controlled by established society and governments, was more correct- in the real World.

In my life, I have witnessed wonderful human contributions to this World.

In my life, I have seen far more and many cruel atrocities.

In my writings, I speak about the World today from the perspective of "Anything is Possible.

I do not mean "Everything is Possible" as meant in positive thinking, though I agree with positive thinking, and in this sense, I do believe "Everything is Possible."

Instead, what I mean by "Anything is Possible" are the atrocities of mankind against mankind, repeated over and over again throughout history.

And so frequently, the sensitive side of me is angered by inequity even as conducted by the United States. I do not agree with many policies.

But then, there is the Hobbes side of me.

And so, while I believe everything you said has absolute merit, what I believe more is this:

If today, there was no United States, then everything you stated in your comment would either not exist or be significantly diminished. And further, I believe the the nature of mankind as described by Hobbes, and confirmed by history, without the United States, would allow the unkind and cruel to pillage everything, everyone, every Country on this Earth.

And so, while freedom did not begin in the United States as you well and truthfully point out, I believe that only the United States protects the existence and continuation of freedom around the World.

I must add, this is my opinion. In these last years of my life, I hope I've learned something. I believe that I have concluded that without strength, in this World, all of us would be prey.

The only explanation for some rule of order, society and decency
in our World today, I believe, can be attributed to the ideals and strength of the United States - even with all of my Country's inadequacies.

But everything I say, and everything you and others say in disagreement, represent just our opinions. My article referenced my opinion, nothing more. And so, I will go a step further and will conclude by saying, without the United States, you and I might not be able to share opinions so freely as we are doing now.

I think this entire sub-conversation is borderline ridiculous and the person who initiated it clearly has no interest in an actual debate but for the benefit of anyone else that scrolls down to read this I just want to mention that as someone that's not from western europe or north america, seeing statements like "without the United States, would allow the unkind and cruel to pillage everything, everyone, every Country on this Earth." - you should really search no further to understand why people become extremely defensive (such as the author of this economist article) when talking about the States. You ARE the pillagers.

Nevermind the military and psuedo-military action/pressure the USA exerts on much of the world, it's seeing US corporations move in after their military to seize the most profitable industries of those countries that draw so much ire from the rest of the world. Under the flag of "democracy" and "development" this is nothing but a media friendly version of 21st century rape and pillaging. Outside the CNN version of USA, it's a far cry from a perfect entity, which probably causes more grief and suffering in the world than any empire has at any point in history.

Let's be honest and admit that the only attractive thing about the United States is the amount of wealth a hard working intelligent person can achieve. If all Americans came out and publicly stated "we'll surely run the world into the ground and we hardly care about the well-being of the middle and lower class, but if you're highly talented and you join us, you'll probably be far richer than if you stay in your own country" then you'd see far fewer quarrels of this nature in public international forums.

Again, when I was referring to welfare, I am talking about the aggregate services provided for citizens across america,
I completely agree with limiting unemployment welfare,
much more funds should be focused on professional training/job creation. But America could improve on other areas of public service, healthcare etc. (especially when it spend so much on it's military, it could more than halve the military budget and still remain the dominant force)

Also , nothing wrong with loving america, wasn't knocking that at all, plain to see, it is one of the greatest countries on the planet, and possibly a bigger sphere of influence then any other super power in the history of the planet.
Not perfect though, far from it.

completely agree with America being a shining light of freedom/democracy/progression in the world. Hands down; number one shining light.
but they haven't assisted everyone. I'm Irish, and suprisingly (given the amount of Irish influence in many U.S Regions) the U.S government didn't do anything to assist Ireland to it's independence in 1921. Irish people suffered 700-800 years of serious oppression, denial of human rights and what is to this day the worst per capita famine ever seen on the planet, all at the hands of the british.
To be honest the freedom tastes all the better for the fact it was self earned,
but just pointing out, at the time America was big enough to turn WW1 but wouldn't do anything to save the Emerald Isle

Years ago while in Dublin strolling down the street, I saw a crowd of people and before my eyes, I saw a man on the street wreathing in pain. He had been attacked apparently and was semi unconscious. I was struck that nobody attempted to assist him. I went to the man's side to see if I could help thinking this to be the right thing to do.

Suddenly, five Irish men grabbed me and threw me up against the wall and said, "Who are you, what's your business in this." I explained I was an American trying to help an injured man. Their eyes went from "cold" to "warm" and they said, "You're an American, okay, we have no problem with you but just keep walking."

I learned the next day, the injured man on the street did not survive. And it was about political issues in Ireland at the time.

Your comment is correct. It is clear that the United States does seem to pick and choose who it will come to the aid of, or help, and it often appears political to me.

Overall, I believe the United States does try to help in issues of humanity across the world but often, it seems that if the United States has allies, in this case, Britain, they are asked to back off. I do not think this is right to help on a selective basis but this is the way of politics. I know it sounds hypocritical.

I think that the United States recognizes it cannot behave as the Policeman of the World because if we did, I believe we'd be imposing our will, or taking sides, and I think the United States tries to avoid this type of conflict.

Of course, I ask myself why America did not bring the Irish people food during the famine. I wonder why the World did not bring food during the famine. I believe, at the very least, food should have been brought into Ireland during this terrible famine and tragedy by all Countries, including the United States.

I am very sorry your Country experienced this atrocity.

Today, I am very sorry the United States is not more of an honest broker in the Middle East. Again, allies, or in this instance, votes for elections wrongly prevent our leaders from being the honest broker. I feel this is also wrong, but I think that our Country's leaders possess knowledge about threats to the vital interests of the United States, inside knowledge that I do not possess. And so, I believe certain decisions like the Middle East, sometimes, can be more complicated.

And so, you are correct, the United States does not always help "Everyone." And again, I am sorry for the suffering the wonderful people of Ireland experienced.

One of my greatest challenges in life has been staying true to my ideals. For me, and I've got into a lot of challenges as a result, I always try to support what my mind and heart says is "right and just." And because I don't play politics in these matters, life's been more challenging.

But I think the United States can't close its eyes to politics, and allies, etc., or what is viewed as vital national interests. And I don't think the World wants the United States to be the Policeman of the World. And that is why I say, "The United States, relative to this earth, this world, is perfect, NO; is almost perfect, YES.

I certainly don't view our country as a villain and I think the USA has been more responsible in its behavior than the other super powers of the British Empire and the Soviet Union; but still I think your estimation of the importance of the USA in the world is greatly exaggerated.

"without the United States, would allow the unkind and cruel to pillage everything, everyone, every Country on this Earth."
Right now, as others have pointed out, the USA is the primary pillager on Earth. This doesn’t make the USA a villain. The British Empire was far worse. But the present situation consists of the USA attacking and pillaging ideologically opposed, resource rich countries (in the Muslim world), keeping some other conflicts dormant by virtue of our overwhelming power, and then turning the other way while African countries DO pillage each other. Things could certainly be worse, but there is also a path in front of us for something that could be far better: a true multi-polar world. I know some in the USA try to dismiss this possibility, but before the rise of the British Empire the world was ALWAYS multi-polar and always had a measure of society, order, and decency; but only this time the multi-polarity will be mixed with open communication, economic integration, and greater mobility. I’d prefer a world where the USA, Russia, China, EU, and some others hold each other in check to the present world where the USA holds everyone else in check and engages in unilateral aggression. This is the world that is naturally evolving and I hope that Americans like you will allow it to evolve rather than encouraging our government to tear down everything the whole world has worked so hard to build by vainly trying to hold onto supremacy with military might.
" I have concluded that without strength, in this World, all of us would be prey."
I am certainly no Hobbesian (his conception of the state of nature has no basis in reality and is entirely implausible on even a theoretical level), but I do think there is a measure of truth in this. That's why I don’t hold ‘freedom’ as an absolute good and I believe countries are frequently justified using force and legal restrictions dealing their local and regional problems. So in other words, the world doesn’t need the USA to thrust freedom on it.
“And so, I will go a step further and will conclude by saying, without the United States, you and I might not be able to share opinions so freely as we are doing now.”
Well sure because the USA invented the internet, and I truly do expect the USA to be a leading driver of innovation for many years to come. Outside of that, I doubt it. I live in China right now and Americans frequently conceive of China as the measure of tyranny. The Chinese government can block any website they want and the USA- for all of its might- can do nothing about it. Yet, even in China I can talk on the Economist and say anything I want. Every regime, democratic or not, is beholden to the support of the masses for fear of a revolution, and at this point virtually every country in the world recognizes the value of economic integration. The few that don’t are obviously not being persuaded by American intimidation.

Meanwhile Europe suffers from a much higher unemployment rate than the US, worst among the young. The "social contract" you extol has been pronounced dead by its financial leadership. A promotion to move closer to the European model is a mistake.

'much higher', hardly.
The average E.U unemployment rate is around half a percent higher than the U.S . . . and thats in the midst of a serious, crisis that threatens the global economy.
The difference 'if' the same thing happened in America, (thing is , it kinda is, maybe not as extreme, but the entire western world is over indebted on the back of the financial crisis.) the fed can just print money to solve the problem. The main cause of panic in europe is that the ECB won't do the same.
The financial crisis was first embodied in the housing crisis (losses in investment banks)+ stock market crash, 2008. it was caused by liquidity bubble(caused by misplaced monetary expansion), this liquidity/credit bubble is now taking shape in the over-indebtedness off most western nations. .
as for the european model 'mistake'.
there are serious flaws with the euro currency , and it is far from a perfect union,
but recall what europe was like when there was no push or determination to be united. world war, thats what. WW2 , sure hitler needed to be stopped, but he came to power as a result of germanys treatment after WW1. And the first world war was a simple disagreement in foreign policy in relation to the Austrian-Hungarian Empire's interests. No union, no compromise.
I just think, peace between western nations shouldn't be take for granted to the level that it is, people see it as a certainty. And with that said , there is more than economic woes or currency woes to worry about if the E.U starts falling part.

I am an American who works hard but does not have access to health care at the moment because my employer does not offer it. I could try a private insurer but this would interfer with basics like gas for the car and food. Stuff like that. I would leave this "wonderful" country in a heart beat and move to a socialist country if I could figure out how to get them to let me in.

Now 2% higher and going in the wrong direction, Killdawg. Even in the wealthiest countries (i.e. Sweden, Norway) youth unemployment (2-4X the average) is reduced by stashing a large percentage of them in a wide range of paid education programs.

Well, that's cool. It's not your fault. I grew up privileged and know how good life in America can be. I'm just extra pissed this evening (American pissed = angry not Brit pissed = drunk) that I fell from that place of grace.

The US Dollar is the reserve currency of the world, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Hegemonic powers of the US is well above any other sovereign nation. The US economy is 3 times the size of the next largest economy. The yardstick used to measure other countries' economies cannot conceivably be used to measure that of the US. Comparing Germany or China to the US is like comparing Azerbaijan to Russia or Bangladesh to India.
As long as the US is capable of military and technological dominance, it should be able to issue as much debt as it likes and do as much deficit-spending as it would like.
The only true too-big-to-fail entity in the world today is the US.

The most exceptional thing about the US is the status of its currency. The most wise economic decision the US ever made is when FDR moved the country out of the gold standard, paving the ground for the dollar to become the reserve of the world.

As long as the dollar is the reserve, the US can and should issue more debt and spend more on deficit. Comparing the US to Greece or Italy is just nonsense.

But please continue with your blind nationalism while the rest of the developed world overtakes America in GDP per capita and quality of life, and while America sees its overall dominance rapidly disappear. I heard from Americans that spewing blind nationalism makes Americans feel better about themselves.
.
I also heard that America is now 15th in GDP per capita nominal, down from 3rd in the year 2000.

"As long as the US is capable of military and technological dominance, it should be able to issue as much debt as it likes and do as much deficit-spending as it would like.
The only true too-big-to-fail entity in the world today is the US.
"
lololol that's funny. I hope you're made Fed chairman and Treasury secretary at the same time...

BTW if America could actually "issue as much debt as it likes and do as much deficit-spending as it would like." as you claim, then why doesn't America just print a whole lot of dollars and give free healthcare, free Lamborghinis, and free money to everyone?

I mean the cost of printing money is negligible, and you can simply print more dollars to cover the cost of printing the dollars.

I was about to respond to your post, then I thought, hmm I'm not familiar with that contributor, and looked at your recent comments (all of the below posted today, in reverse chronological order) and decided why bother.

"I guess you Americans hate math..."
"You're an idiot"
"So maybe you Taiwanese trolls should think about what you're actually trying to accomplish before just blindly trolling?"
"So now I hope China invades your ass in the near future, and there's really nothing you can do about it."
"You're an idiot"
"I don't deny that I'm a troll"
"I don't ever insult people IRL [in real life] because then people won't like me as much. But occasionally I do enjoy insulting people anonymously over the internet and there are no negative consequences"
"Sorry I didn't realize I was suppose to be nice to people on the anonymous parts of the internet. What motivation do I have to do so?"

"As long as the US is capable of military and technological dominance, it should be able to issue as much debt as it likes and do as much deficit-spending as it would like.
The only true too-big-to-fail entity in the world today is the US."

"As long as the dollar is the reserve, the US can and should issue more debt and spend more on deficit."
This sounds rather like the GW Bush approach to US power: keep pushing (as in Afghanistan and Iraq) it until it reaches is limits and breaches them. Leave it to someone else to clean up the resulting mess.
The US$ is the reserve currency for the time being but there is no law of nature that says that it must remain so.

Why you would use NGDP instead of RGDP when China has considerable inflation is anyone's guess, but if you decide to use RGDP (the more accurate figure), China's GDP is $5.93 trillion, and the U.S. is $14.59 trillion (both sources form the World Bank). So U.S. economy is not quite three times larger than China, but it's close.

Actually GDP adjusted for PPP is the real indicator for economic strength, and especially so because China manipulates its currency, and most economists would agree with this. But I was just being nice to Americans...

All RGDP does is adjust for inflation over time, which is useful to calculate the purchasing power of consumers in THE SAME COUNTRY over time, but is useless to compare countries that use different currencies because nominal GDP already adjusts for exchange rate changes. (All else being equal, when a country's inflation is high its currency decreases in value)

Also your world bank figures are from 2010... China grew at 9.5% last year and the RMB appreciated ~4% against the USD, while America's GDP grew by 1.5%, so in aggregate China's gained ~12% ground on the US in 2011 alone.

You have no idea how many Americans are fed up with our country, or rather, what our country seems to be about these days. The gap between haves and have nots has never been greater. The middle class is an endangered species relying on credit to stay afloat. I am without health care while the millionaires in Washington treat themselves to the best of health care at taxpayer expense not to mention every other perk you can imagine. Lobbyists and corporations call the shots and our leaders like it that way because it lines their pockets and gets them elected. But it is damned European "socialism" if regular people want a safety net and a government that makes them the priority instead of Wall street or Big Oil. Don't go by our right-wing media or the small percentage of Americans (mostly in the South) who believe their rhetoric. They are the minority. I know so many people who are fed up with this country and anticipate a bleak future if there are not radical changes, and fast. To think the last revolution was over some piddling taxes on tea by the Brits, lol.

I'm sure MS is alluding to the economist's graphs (the underlying phenomenon, really) where the blue states are handing the red states a huge check in terms of federal tax receipts vs. government spending on a per-state basis. Now that's irony.

Why are you certain what he had in mind, and how can you know what he "clearly meant"?
Fiscally responsible Germany has single-payer healthcare.
Fiscally responsible Germany has high-speed rail.
Fiscally responsible Germany is extremely union-friendly.
Fiscally responsible Germany has cap-and-trade laws.
The difference between Germany and the "basket cases" of Europe is not government policies, but competitiveness.
If Paul Ryan admires fiscally responsible Germany, he would've switched parties.

If you read the article, you will find that he is challenging the ignorant rhetoric of "basket case" applied to even countries like Italy. But more important is the objection to the equivalent of calling the US a basket case when a state like California or Indiana may be bankrupt and claiming to mean only those states.

The thing with Germany is the attitudes and relation of unions and management are significantly different, than in the US, where union and business management fight with each other and the front line worker is shafted blind.

Nightscroft Squire Maldunne - It bothers me when people lump a few euro-countries together , stamp them with the label "periphery" or basket cases and pass comment on them as if they are all the same broken systems.
e.g; Ireland ran a budget surplus for the ten years preceding the crisis. Apart from bankers at a handful of banks and property developers creating massive losses that the government guaranteed, Ireland wouldn't have needed a bailout, in fact it'd be probably the strongest e.u economy right now apart from Germany. The government guaranteed the banks bonds and so on, primarily doing right by the germans and the u.k , because their banks would have suffered the most had Irish banks been allowed to default on their bonds. Then it is perceived that they did Ireland a favour by bailing it out, they were bailing themselves out.
I also think that 'basket case' is a little over the top for all those countries bar greece (and maybe Italy) they were uncompetitive, not crazy.

Ireland had one of the lowest deficits in the EU coming into the crisis. The current deficit comes from guaranteeing failed banks, which was a colossal mistake it's now paying for. Greece on the other hand had a huge deficit. Don't get them mixed up.

Well, I suppose that's what you get for creating the European union. My response was to M.S, who seemed outraged that Paul Ryan dare call "Europe" a basket case. While I suppose his comment wasn't fair to more responsible European countries, claiming he misspoke isn't really fair to Mr. Ryan, given that in all likelihood he had the problem countries in mind when he said Europe.

Well it happens that a basket case like Spain has a lower public and budget deficits than the US, so get your facts right. Besides, fiscally responsible Germany was a basket case during most of the 90s and run budget deficits above the Maastricht Treaty criteria in the early 2000s. It seems that some Nordics feel so superior insulting those idiotic PIGS that they simply can not get away from their prejudices.

I think what the article is saying is that European countries, taken as a whole, won't actually face the problem that Paul Ryan is discussing with Tim Geithner. That's because European countries are controlling their healthcare costs in a way that US isn't right now.

By not coming to agreement Mr Ryan is part of the problem, but so are the others not agreeing, including Mr Geithner and Mr Obama. Perhaps this demonstrates the weakness of a political system where you have checks and balances but no sense of responsibility.

The only reason he is justified in saying 'this is Europe' is that many Americans have a completely warped view of the way European countries are run and their economic performance because certain American politicians wildly distort what European welfare states are actually like to try and scare people away from reforms.

Hey Ryan, how about imposing the same Medicare and Social Security cuts on those over 55 that you think are fair for those 54 and under?

After all, we have a huge debt problem right now. As a result of a 30 year whine for income tax cuts. How about giving those who voted for small government on the revenue side what they deserve on the spending side, and allowing those coming after to decide for themselves?

And by the way, the U.S. is better off than Europe on these issues -- demographically.

We are in the shape we are in due to self-inflicted wounds. Or rather wounds inflicted by the entitlement of Generation Greed, which they intend to be received by those coming after in government (as has already occured in the private sector and many cases in the family).

Until recently, both Europe and America were in the hospital with critical cardiac distress.
While America seems healthy, because they've already been released and are bsck chowing down on a big double cheeseburger and fries as we speak, Europe seems sicker, because they are still in the hospital getting a double bypass. It's terrible for the Greeks at the moment, but I hope they can look forward to a bright future when the structural reforms pay off. Europe's austerity shows they're taking their diet seriously! I hope it's sustainable...
Hopefully our dear Yank friends will be joining them in the gym soon.
I don't want to think about how the rest of the world will suffer if America lands in the hospital with another crisis like the last.

"and the unwillingness of the more competitive countries to subsidise the less competitive countries,"

Each coin has two sides! What about that: The unwillingness of the less competitive countries to catch up and become more competitive instead? In such a case, subsidies are not required and Europe is more competitive as a whole compared to the rest of the world. On the other hand, if there were such subsidies, there wouldn't be any incentive to catch up, right? The problem is called moral hazard and you should know that! Obviously, you don't! How embarrassing!

I also thought that was a very strange, un-Economist-like way of examining the Euro-periphery's competitiveness problem. In some respects these peripheral countries are not competitive because they simply don't have some of the resources that the wealthier nations do (Greek agriculture is comparatively limited in terms of crop variation from what I understand - just as an example), but many of the problems are ones that are within their power to fix, but they have chosen, for decades now, a path that is not sustainable.

While you're not wrong... "catching up" is a lot easier to say than to do. Greece is trying to implement "reforms" that would take it about half-way to a sustainable model, and they've already brought it to the brink of bloody revolution. What exactly would you have them do next?

The post is spot on: in America, the efficient states subsidise the others, heavily. And the most productive states aren't always what you'd think. Labor productivity in Texas, West Virginia and Kentucky is some 30-40% lower than in California or New York. Yet those states aren't facing the worst budget crises, precisely because they don't have to pay their own way.

A lot of these strings on health care are appropriate in terms of the debt. But fundamentally, the US pays more often much more and gets less with the current system than other developed countries. Rationing can be a really good thing when you are talking about, as we mostly are, spending large amounts of other people's money on treatments that won't help, and can often seriously degrade people's life.

There are only two good arguments for the current system in the US.

I have never seen any numbers on this, but it could well be that wealthy Americans have a significantly longer life expectancy than say wealthy French people, and so the extra cash we spend is in fact working for some people.

RR sometimes makes the argument in various ways that the US is just culturally or politically ill-suited to the various systems that provide more bang for the buck in other developed countries. This could also be true. But it is a pretty depressing argument to make, because there is an important sense in which healthcare is an important factor in economic efficiency. It doesn't matter much if it is government spending or private sector spending. If you have one company that pays 17% of its revenues on building maintenance, and a competitor pays 10%, the long-term result is pretty obvious. Even short term, how many jobs that aren't coming back were sent abroad because, after all the other factors had been accounted for, of the projected cost increases in health care?

Not exactly. Americans are unhealthier than Europeans because of cultural reasons so adopting a European health care system will not give the US European outcomes. But I think there's things we can do about legal barriers to better efficiency. E.g., patent reform, medical licensing reform, tort reform, and even negotiating emergency care prices (because emergency care is legally mandated). But assuming we did all that, we'll simply be paying market price for health care and any further intervention would be distorting market signals. We'd still be spending too much on health care just as I think we spend too much on iPods but I don't think that's something we want government to regulate. We can still heap social scorn on say, 80-years who get chemo just as we rightly demonized Leona Helmsley for leaving $12 million to her dog. Having children also helps people to be more frugal.

Lets not forget that a big part of US healthcare costs are legal in nature. We sue each other far to often and for far too much. The court system does not check meritless claims as well in the US as it does, say, in the UK.

Likewise, the US subsidizes much of the costs for new drug development. There is a free rider problem here. Also, simple fixes such as better warning labels would prevent tens of thousands of health problems for each new blockbuster drug without hindering profits.

A "simple fix" would be to ban the marketing of pharmaceutical products directly to consumers, who are not remotely qualified to decide whether a given treatment would do them more good than harm.

Patent reform would also be a good step. But my favourite legal reform would be to introduce criminal liability for the chief executive and board members of any pharmaceutical company found to have suppressed any kind of evidence about their products' effects and side effects. That would put a damper on their marketing.

I forgot who said it but recently I heard someone say exactly the opposite. That doctors should have no say in whether Cialis is right for you. That it's one of those things we can decide for ourselves without having to pay a doctor to tell us.

It might help if the medical system actually tracked outcomes, then there might be some consistent basis for assessing medical care. However, we like to claim our system is the best-est in the world, but we can't even evaluate which medical procedure is better than another. We let doctors apply the anecdotal experience.

Overall though tort isn't pumping health care inflation. A more interesting parallel is animal health care costs. These are inflating at roughly the same rate as human costs, with none of the attendant excuses of government ineptitude, socialism or tort costs.

For the people Ryan and his like are trying to keep befuddled, Europe is a bad socialistic place full of snotty waiters, or so they've heard from their friends.

He is either an idiot or being dishonest, but since everybody knows Europe is a socialistic hell full of empty churches, he and the rest of the usual suspects get re-elected for pandering to the ignorance and prejudice of their base.

A curiosity. Here in the US, we've got $15.4T of Federal Debt, but another $1.1T of State Debt and $1.7T of County/Municipality Debt. (usdebtclock.org) Do the European nations issue debt at the local geographies as well?

If I look at the debt clock site for too long I just get depressed, but if you've never gone, it's worth a look. If you like crying over spilled milk, turn it back to how things looked in 2000... I'm not sure if this disproves an often heard claim that lowering taxes will lower the deficit or that spending money on the military will make the economy grow, but we seem to have done a lot of both during the last decade.

As for medical spending, the only thing that might bring down costs are low cost testing centers that can send data via the internet and cheap airfare to Costa Rica.

But a lot of this debt is owned domestically within the US. For example if someone takes a loan to buy a house, then a US commercial bank provides the loan. When that commercial bank needs to raise money, then will issue bonds that is purchased by US businesses or financial sectors.

So lending money from your left pocket to your right does increase the total amount of your debt in a sense, but a NET debt ratio is much more relevant.

Thanks, so if can take it a step further, then the US (assuming the debt clock figures are correct) would be running a comparable 120% of GDP, not 102%. Of course, as hedge fund guy also provided, the cash flow like basis of Governmental Accounting also neglects the tremendous off balance sheet liabilities from SS and MC that are certainly coming. Are those liabilities noted in the EU as well? In America they don't exist until it's time for the cash to go out the door.

My recollection is that the projections were that total healthcare spending would NOT go down in the near term with ACA in effect. Total spending was projected to be something like 1% higher, which may sound bad, until you realize that a lot of people are going to get substantially higher quality health care out of the deal, as well as reduced medical bankruptcies and a greater level of financial security for all of us. (sorry, can't find the link off hand, but it was in one of the later CBO analyses...)

Then in the out years (beyond the 10 year window), the bill is projected to reduce total health care spending substantially, in the form of reduced Medicare expenses, basically by limiting hospital reimbursement rates and initiating the IPAB to establish medical effectiveness standards to reduce costs. It is reasonable to assume that those measures will in fact save money, but it would be overly optimistic to believe they will keep doing so at the projected rate indefinitely. After a certain amount of time forcing the cost curve to bend ... it may become less pliant.

Short answer: No. If you believe the projections, which were rigged to begin with, then I have some real estate to sell you. See the CLASS program which they abandoned for an example--fiscally unsound from the beginning but billed as a deficit reduction method b/c it paid in premiums for years before paying out (never mind that they would never be enough to pay costs).

Silence, it's really easy to say "projections are bad" and just imagine that the CBO's numbers are bad, but they really aren't. The CLASS program was essentially a high risk pool that failed not because of fudgy accounting, but because it was an experimental program, and experimental high risk pools are very sensitive to adverse selection which causes them to fail often.

High risk pools, by the way, were one of the few specific ideas Republicans gave when asked what their alternative to "ObamaCare" was.

Anyway, the meat of PPACA, in terms of the largest revenue sources and expenditures, are a lot more robust. They are new, but they aren't that experimental. If you can find something specific that is fudgy in the accounting to justify your claim that it's "rigged", be my guest, but my bet is you'd spend a lot of time trying and find little, and what little you found could be easily refuted. The fact is, the CBO's projections aren't going to be exact, but they are pretty good.

On a less related note, do you think the politicians (Republican ones, mainly) making such negative references to foreign countries harm the American relationships with the said countries? I am not sufficiently versed in the intricate world of diplomacy, but I would imagine that the French or the Chinese would take it very badly if a Republican were to become president in 2012 and remember that the said Republican was bashing them all throughout the campaign trail.

Lack of tact or maturity, another reason not to vote Republican for the next 10 years.

A few days ago Santorum claimed 10% of Dutch deaths were due to euthanasia, and half of those were involuntary. He also claimed elderly Dutch wear bracelets with "do not euthanize me", and are fleeing to foreign hospitals.

All of which caused quite some indignation in the Netherlands. (Euthanasia accounts for only 2% of deaths here. Only the patient is allowed to choose euthanasia, and only under special conditions. In addition, the patient is never under any financial pressure in the Dutch system.)

Such a negative and ignorant reference on a moral issue is far more sensitive than a financial one, but the Dutch government does not voice itself in foreign election campaigns. There would be a protest if Santorum repeats it if he is elected.

I think few Europeans will care about or bother with this statement by Paul Ryan. At the same time, they'll politely ignore any advice from American financial secretaries on sustainable public finances. So foreign relations won't be damaged, but US influence would be greater if the US were a creditor nation with a solid budget.